It should be that easy to view the product you have purchased, in whatever format is convenient to you. You are, after all, not paying for the format it's in - you're paying for the movie/music.
The only feature I miss in the Bay is an option to directly send money to the artist(s).
Yeah, that would be nice. However, because you don't have that option, you/are/ paying for the original product before downloading in this super-convenient format, right? Because you think that you should be paying for products and services you enjoy? I'm sure that's what that vast majority of bay users do, wouldn't you say?
Um, guys? Where'd you go? Guys?
Seriously. If the answer to that question is no, convenience of format is just as much an excuse to take what you want as "information wants to be free".
Indeed. Similar to calling it "DRM" - a meaningless phrase that most people assume is a Good Thing, or else why would windows sometimes download DRM updates? That must mean it's fixing stuff, right?
When you create a product that spawns a multi-billion dollar market focused on protecting people from the flaws in your product, you've done something wrong. This is something that should have happened years ago.
No. Never try to improve a car analogy. Ever. Hell, it's my fault. I shouldn't have made one in the first place -- because doing so is a guarantee that someone will come along behind and try to improve upon it.
The problem is there is a mass global rebellion to copyright laws....
Have to do with this:
So... it's bad that you can be caught breaking the law? Maybe not breaking the law would be better then complaining about the cops being able to catch you?
Maybe we should declare a Godwin style law, only related to copyrights.
What is it with people like you? Do you feel so inferior that you simply must insult others to convince yourself of how great you are?
Anyway -- nothing requires OEMs to install a browser. Especially those small PC-building shops who will grab OEM windows and install it. If they're not paying attention, they're going to have some supremely peeved customers.
You're not missing much. All that they do is remove "iexplore.exe" - the engine is still there. It/has/ to be or half the OS breaks. Not to mention the millions of apps that use mshtml.dll or wherever the rendering engine lives.
Frankly, I think this just a stupid idea. Here, let me sell you this car without a steering wheel. Maybe you can drive to the dealer to get a replacement. (ie, download firefox... without a web browser to get there.)
I would say it works on the exact opposite - the assurance that no matter how many routers it passes through (each with their own code for sending yon electrons to the right place), it will arrive at its destination as if nothing existed between the two endpoints.
I would agree with most of this - but for one thing. You absolutely cannot risk that a screw-up in your development environment will impact production. This applies all the way through, such as:
- a dev process running on multiple VMs that takes too much CPU
- a mistake in rolling out new VM images that impacts prod VMs on the same box
TEsting should not be considered the province of software alone. Your test and dev environments also allow for testing of new infrastructure changes as well. Hosting them on the same physical hardware loses that separation, and can increase the risk to the production environment -- though the specific level of risk might vary depending on the env.
This a trade-off. The down-side of it is that your production systems are never truly tested unless this is done explicitly before they're put into service - but this is no different than when each server was it's hardware.
Well - sure, but then it's classic "MiM". Which, by definition, comcast already is because they are often routing traffic to and from networks not their own.
This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.
If your test and prod VMs are sharing iron, some might say you're Doing It Wrong.
(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?)
Imagine that, researching first -- far better than spouting off before one reads, and looking the fool. *cough*different DRM*cough*
And as long as people who know what it means keep calling it "DRM", the folks who don't will never learn. Using snarky alternative meanings doesn't help (and this isn't directed at you specifically, it's become quite a common practice) get the message out to the great unwashed masses. When the only people "get it" are those who already know, calling it "Digital Restrictions Management" et al amongst ourselves has all the efficacy of little kids muttering in the corner to each other about how stupid grown-ups are.
What would be the point of that in this case? Comcast intercepts DNS request, forwards it to the original server while pretending to be the client, and sends the reply back to the client while pretending to be the requested server?
If that was what were happening (as nonsensical as it would be), then the story poster would still have seen traffic on his remote pseudo DNS server -- he didn't.
Given what GP has posted, though,I'm inclined to think it's a testing configuration error... or an issue specific to certain comcast locations.
I'm a Comcast user, and I run a DNS server for a few private domains that only I use.
It's not clear whether you're runnign that DNS server at home, on your comcast account, or externally? It sounds like the report is for out-of-network DNS servers - he has set up a pseudo-server listening on 53 on a slicehost box, which is not on comcast lines. If you're in-network, you may never be getting re-routed at all.
That's the point of contracts. Once someone is bound by one, you don't have to worry about loyalty. And if they're up for renewal and are hooked on their [locked] iphone, again you don't need to entice them- the vast majority are coming back.
As for myself, I have never bought a cellphone costing more than 2X the absolute cheapest phone on the local market. But, that's just because I am not rich.
So 2x $0 = 0? (since you can always find a contract w/ a free phone) Why not just say $0?
You really think that $0 is a "free phone"? Those two year contracts are not cheap.
Visual SlickEdit does a much better job of completion than Visual Studio, for precisely that reason - it wil llist variables of appropriate type, in order of local, member, global.
I've never really understood how it could help with memory management - because now in addition to the memory you'd consume to load each page, you have additional overhead for each instance of the executable. It would seem, then, that viewing the same number of pages in distinct processes vs within the same process would use more memory. The additional overhead I'm referring to isn't the memory used by the code itself - obviously that's loaded just once - but instead it's all the dynamic initialization and allocations performed by that code. Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
The only feature I miss in the Bay is an option to directly send money to the artist(s).
Yeah, that would be nice. However, because you don't have that option, you /are/ paying for the original product before downloading in this super-convenient format, right? Because you think that you should be paying for products and services you enjoy? I'm sure that's what that vast majority of bay users do, wouldn't you say?
Um, guys? Where'd you go? Guys?
Seriously. If the answer to that question is no, convenience of format is just as much an excuse to take what you want as "information wants to be free".
Cue flamebait mods. I can take it.
Indeed. Similar to calling it "DRM" - a meaningless phrase that most people assume is a Good Thing, or else why would windows sometimes download DRM updates? That must mean it's fixing stuff, right?
When you create a product that spawns a multi-billion dollar market focused on protecting people from the flaws in your product, you've done something wrong. This is something that should have happened years ago.
It's not just consoles.
Mercedes sell less cars every year than Ford do, however I know which one I want to drive...
Me too
No. Never try to improve a car analogy. Ever. Hell, it's my fault. I shouldn't have made one in the first place -- because doing so is a guarantee that someone will come along behind and try to improve upon it.
Just reply to him with "math math math math" a few hundred times. It'll drive him insane and we'll never hear from him again.
The problem is there is a mass global rebellion to copyright laws....
Have to do with this:
So... it's bad that you can be caught breaking the law? Maybe not breaking the law would be better then complaining about the cops being able to catch you?
Maybe we should declare a Godwin style law, only related to copyrights.
What is it with people like you? Do you feel so inferior that you simply must insult others to convince yourself of how great you are?
Anyway -- nothing requires OEMs to install a browser. Especially those small PC-building shops who will grab OEM windows and install it. If they're not paying attention, they're going to have some supremely peeved customers.
Frankly, I think this just a stupid idea. Here, let me sell you this car without a steering wheel. Maybe you can drive to the dealer to get a replacement. (ie, download firefox... without a web browser to get there.)
I would say it works on the exact opposite - the assurance that no matter how many routers it passes through (each with their own code for sending yon electrons to the right place), it will arrive at its destination as if nothing existed between the two endpoints.
- a dev process running on multiple VMs that takes too much CPU
- a mistake in rolling out new VM images that impacts prod VMs on the same box
TEsting should not be considered the province of software alone. Your test and dev environments also allow for testing of new infrastructure changes as well. Hosting them on the same physical hardware loses that separation, and can increase the risk to the production environment -- though the specific level of risk might vary depending on the env.
This a trade-off. The down-side of it is that your production systems are never truly tested unless this is done explicitly before they're put into service - but this is no different than when each server was it's hardware.
Well - sure, but then it's classic "MiM". Which, by definition, comcast already is because they are often routing traffic to and from networks not their own.
This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.
If your test and prod VMs are sharing iron, some might say you're Doing It Wrong.
(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?)
Imagine that, researching first -- far better than spouting off before one reads, and looking the fool. *cough*different DRM*cough*
And as long as people who know what it means keep calling it "DRM", the folks who don't will never learn. Using snarky alternative meanings doesn't help (and this isn't directed at you specifically, it's become quite a common practice) get the message out to the great unwashed masses. When the only people "get it" are those who already know, calling it "Digital Restrictions Management" et al amongst ourselves has all the efficacy of little kids muttering in the corner to each other about how stupid grown-ups are.
If that was what were happening (as nonsensical as it would be), then the story poster would still have seen traffic on his remote pseudo DNS server -- he didn't.
Given what GP has posted, though,I'm inclined to think it's a testing configuration error... or an issue specific to certain comcast locations.
I'm a Comcast user, and I run a DNS server for a few private domains that only I use.
It's not clear whether you're runnign that DNS server at home, on your comcast account, or externally? It sounds like the report is for out-of-network DNS servers - he has set up a pseudo-server listening on 53 on a slicehost box, which is not on comcast lines. If you're in-network, you may never be getting re-routed at all.
That's the point of contracts. Once someone is bound by one, you don't have to worry about loyalty. And if they're up for renewal and are hooked on their [locked] iphone, again you don't need to entice them- the vast majority are coming back.
Can someone explain to me why it is that when it's Apple + AT&T, it becomes an unbearable outrage?
Because, I am sad to say, Mac users seem to be more subject to bursts outrage than normal people.
So 2x $0 = 0? (since you can always find a contract w/ a free phone) Why not just say $0?
That two year contract that you just signed to get it means your "free" phone is anything but.
As for myself, I have never bought a cellphone costing more than 2X the absolute cheapest phone on the local market. But, that's just because I am not rich.
So 2x $0 = 0? (since you can always find a contract w/ a free phone) Why not just say $0?
You really think that $0 is a "free phone"? Those two year contracts are not cheap.
Visual SlickEdit does a much better job of completion than Visual Studio, for precisely that reason - it wil llist variables of appropriate type, in order of local, member, global.
Still, I find large numbers of people only believe the evidence their own beliefs will admit into evidence.
True in all cases, and not limited to religion alone.
Firefox fills in the missing gaps in 3.5 (tabs to new window, tab to existing window)
I've never really understood how it could help with memory management - because now in addition to the memory you'd consume to load each page, you have additional overhead for each instance of the executable. It would seem, then, that viewing the same number of pages in distinct processes vs within the same process would use more memory. The additional overhead I'm referring to isn't the memory used by the code itself - obviously that's loaded just once - but instead it's all the dynamic initialization and allocations performed by that code. Am I missing something?